Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

(Rumour) Maple Leafs Have Interest In Erik Gudbranson


Bo53Horvat

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Rush17 said:

we are a disaster on d without tanman.  pouliot and edler finally stabilized the d in tanevs absence after some bad d play.  i can understand the sentiment and maybe pouliot / edler can maintain the fort. the idea of juolevi/ tanev combo is just so enticing.  i am actually loving edlers play as of late under green.  hes aggressive with that big frame i love it.

 

that begs the question though who is more expendable tanev or edler? they both bring so much to the team.  im curious where Stecher fits in all of this.  is he playing 3rd pairing minutes because they dont want to tank guddys value or is it a way for guddy to prove himself and give stecher less responsibility in his sophomore season?

I think the thing to do is trust Benning. I like all of his moves so far Rush.

And Green only amplifies the work this staff is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, guntrix said:

Downplaying stats only to cherry pick them on a game-by-game basis doesn't make sense, but hey, here we are. 

Your narrative is willfully ignorant. I downplay the analytics only portion of the fanbase, not the stats they worship. Analytics have a place in coaching and managing rosters, but not to the extent that those who try to ply a trade doing so think they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Your narrative is willfully ignorant. I downplay the analytics only portion of the fanbase, not the stats they worship. Analytics have a place in coaching and managing rosters, but not to the extent that those who try to ply a trade doing so think they should.

11514-animated_gifchat8etf.gif

 

You know you need to re-evaluate life when you basically admit that you have it out against a certain group of posters and not exactly the arguments being conveyed. 

 

No wonder you're contradicting yourself. Your analytics post is a pinpoint example of using stats without any sort of context... you know, the very thing you're supposedly against. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, guntrix said:

11514-animated_gifchat8etf.gif

 

You know you need to re-evaluate life when you basically admit that you have it out against a certain group of posters and not exactly the arguments being conveyed. 

If you think a person needs to reevaluate life because of what they're typing on a hockey message board, you need to get out more. May I suggest Pacific Spirit Park? It's beautiful there.

Quote

 

No wonder you're contradicting yourself. Your analytics post is a pinpoint example of using stats without any sort of context... you know, the very thing you're supposedly against. 

Not everything boils down to stats, guntrix. No matter how much you'd love it to. I'd suggest brushing up on your psychology. Either that or pulling your head out of that hole.  

 

Great choice of gif.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hatedkid666 said:

I dont get how you can think keeping Guddy is a good idea? He cant handle the puck for the life of him and he honestly isnt THAT physical. We can find a way cheaper and better option.

I think it depends on what JB could get in trade for Guddy that makes whether we extend him or not.  If the return is not so good, then we pretty much have to sign him, or lose the asset.  I wonder at what dollar and term Guddy becomes too expensive an asset to trade, if we do sign him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hatedkid666 said:

I dont get how you can think keeping Guddy is a good idea? He cant handle the puck for the life of him and he honestly isnt THAT physical. We can find a way cheaper and better option.

He kind of reminds me of Pedan. He's obviously better but the similarities are there. Like Pedan, Guddy is a fast skater but basically has no ability to skate the puck up the ice/out of the defensive zone. It's pretty much boards and out every time. They both also have hard shots but hardly ever use them, let alone score. Lastly, they're both big, imposing defensemen that leave more to be desired. When they want to, they can both physically punish their oppposition but it just doesn't happen very often. I'd rather pay a guy less than half of what Guddy will command in free agency to go out their and be twice as physical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If you think a person needs to reevaluate life because of what they're typing on a hockey message board, you need to get out more. May I suggest Pacific Spirit Park? It's beautiful there.

Ironic given the frequency with which you post. 

 

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Not everything boils down to stats, guntrix. No matter how much you'd love it to. I'd suggest brushing up on your psychology. Either that or pulling your head out of that hole.  

 

Great choice of gif.

Never said everything boiled down to stats. You're welcome to find the exact quote, otherwise you're just taking words out of my mouth. 

 

The hole analogy is funny because that's usually how I envision CDC members like yourself. You'd imagine that every Canuck player except for the annual scapegoat(s) were perfect. 

 

hqdefault.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

 I'd rather pay a guy less than half of what Guddy will command in free agency to go out their and be twice as physical. 

Great idea. Do you have a list of players that are UFA this year, not likely to be re-signed by their club, fit the criteria and would sign for a few million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, guntrix said:

Ironic given the frequency with which you post. 

Have to do something at work. That begs a question though. Are you monitoring my posts? That's not creepy at all. 

Quote

Never said everything boiled down to stats. You're welcome to find the exact quote, otherwise you're just taking words out of my mouth. 

Nah. I don't peruse through other poster's posting history. Don't want to cut your grass, junior. 

Quote

The hole analogy is funny because that's usually how I envision CDC members like yourself. You'd imagine that every Canuck player except for the annual scapegoat(s) were perfect. 

 

hqdefault.jpg

Again....you envision me? That isn't you sitting in the blue Tercel down the street is it?

 

No player is perfect. Not Gudbranson, not Horvat, not either Sedin. They all have looked like the back side of a mule at times this season. 

 

I just find the peanut gallery, that scapegoats players purely because of analytics and fails to see what they do bring, annoying and simplistic in their stats only take on the game. This applies not only to Guddy but to Sutter and Dorsett as well. 

 

Good sleuthing on the ostrich pic though. Solid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Have to do something at work. That begs a question though. Are you monitoring my posts? That's not creepy at all. 

Don't flatter yourself, you're usually on the contributor leaderboards. 

 

53 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Nah. I don't peruse through other poster's posting history. Don't want to cut your grass, junior. 

Again....you envision me? That isn't you sitting in the blue Tercel down the street is it?

 

No player is perfect. Not Gudbranson, not Horvat, not either Sedin. They all have looked like the back side of a mule at times this season. 

 

I just find the peanut gallery, that scapegoats players purely because of analytics and fails to see what they do bring, annoying and simplistic in their stats only take on the game. This applies not only to Guddy but to Sutter and Dorsett as well. 

 

Good sleuthing on the ostrich pic though. Solid. 

And this is why we've never won a Stanley Cup. The popular myth that you need to sacrifice skill for bruteness is very 1980s.

 

Take a look at the 2011 Bruins that apparently traumatized many users: they had players with skill that could also play with a physical edge. Chara, Bergeron, Lucic, Horton, Marchand, Kelly, you name it. The idea that both are mutually exclusive is outdated and disproven by the current presence of guys like Ferland who not only have physical attributes, but also speed and skill. 

 

To say that we need to break the bank to secure a guy who literally looks clumsy playing hockey is bewildering, especially considering the fact that he's not good at any one thing. 

 

We've already been to the conference finals; to the Stanley Cup Finals; heck, we've made it to within a game from the cup. I want the Canucks to win a cup within my lifetime and we're not going to do that with guys like Gudbranson in the lineup. Keeping players in the lineup solely for their ability to stick up for teammates is an outdated mode of thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...